No. But sometimes exercising your rights gets extra special attention from the authorities.

Go figure, you advertise the fact that sometimes it's a good thing to advocate spilling blood because of "tyranny", MEANING WHAT ELSE, government or Obama or maybe killing some people at random to show your anger.

Quote:

It is. I wish it would stop.

So stop.

Quote:

What, is utopia not the word to describe the kind of world you envision, a totally unfettered free market.

I don't have a problem with guns or carrying them where legal but combined with promoting shedding blood at an event where the president and scores if not hundreds of people are is idiotic and the guy is a total dumb fuck.

I'm so glad I live in a country where I don't have to worry about insurance and I certainly don't have to worry about idots feeling a need to express themselves with a weapon of mass-murder.

That was a sensible display of his right to bear arms, something other states would do well to emulate. Open carry is an excellent way to deter crime. How many robberies and other crimes do you think would happen if the majority of the population was well trained and well armed?

The funny thing about this whole gun things is that nothing happened at all. No one was shot. No one was assaulted or threatened. Nothing happened. Which, I suspect, was part of this guy's (and the guy in New Hampshire's) point.

"Buu..bbuut...buut...something could have happened!!!"

The other thing is that the president of the United States is surrounded by dozens of men and women with multiple, loaded (and probably automatic) weapons.

Oh, so if they're carrying guns, which is perfectly legal, then they don't have a right to free speech?

Otherwise, they can have posters that say OBAMA: WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE with ALIVE crossed out and it's perfectly fine?

I don't condone posters with that on them (though I suspect it was tongue in cheek, given Bush's Texas Tough Talk). However, if they were armed to the teeth like that guy, I personally would want the secret service to apprehend them. That's just common sense.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Oh, so if they're carrying guns, which is perfectly legal, then they don't have a right to free speech?

Otherwise, they can have posters that say OBAMA: WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE with ALIVE crossed out and it's perfectly fine?

It's certainly true that a poster saying "BUSH (or OBAMA): WANTED DEAD or ALIVE" is a more clearly direct threat. As is a photo of Bush (or Obama) showing a gun barrel pressed against his temple. But you know...that's just free speech and this...well this is terrorism. Or something.

Rights are funny things. It sounds like some want to be able to turn them on and off at will, with no more necessity than the perceived safety of the president. It's like, for some one person to have more rights, others need have less.

Another interesting thing I've noticed - when rights are encroached because of the perceived safety of the entire nation, it's an atrocity. When the perceived safety of a single person is compromised, it's time to put the rights away for another day.

I wonder what Obama's opinion on the subject is. If I were in his shoes, I'd rather one of the people I volunteered to serve retain their rights than I retain mine.

I don't condone posters with that on them (though I suspect it was tongue in cheek, given Bush's Texas Tough Talk). However, if they were armed to the teeth like that guy, I personally would want the secret service to apprehend them. That's just common sense.

The laws in his state are quite progressive about open carry. Even here on the west coast open carry is legal, but people are subject to arrest and harassment from police because they are not fully aware of the law. Also, out here the weapon cannot be loaded, unlike in New Hampshire.

Rights are funny things. It sounds like some want to be able to turn them on and off at will, with no more necessity than the perceived safety of the president. It's like, for some one person to have more rights, others need have less.

Another interesting thing I've noticed - when rights are encroached because of the perceived safety of the entire nation, it's an atrocity. When the perceived safety of a single person is compromised, it's time to put the rights away for another day.

I wonder what Obama's opinion on the subject is. If I were in his shoes, I'd rather one of the people I volunteered to serve retain their rights than I retain mine.

But, that's me.

The funny thing is, not one peep on this subject from the president, but plenty of peeps from others.

The laws in his state are quite progressive about open carry. Even here on the west coast open carry is legal, but people are subject to arrest and harassment from police because they are not fully aware of the law. Also, out here the weapon cannot be loaded, unlike in New Hampshire.

But the secret service won't let anyone near him with guns like that. That's my point.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I hope the president doesn't continue to make life difficult for the secret service by making any more surprise visits to Hell Burger.

All it takes is one simple mistake at the wrong time, "Mr. President...." BAM!!!

A friend of mine who served in Iraq has two friends over at the secret service. They're not on presidential detail (counterfeit money is their game). But they've relayed some stories about how Obama is very difficult for the secret service to handle. He's very "slippery". He enjoys his freedom too much. Bush, they say, never took any chances. Was scared to death of getting shot. Obama? Could care less.

Recipe. For. Disaster.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

I hope the president doesn't continue to make life difficult for the secret service by making any more surprise visits to Hell Burger.

All it takes is one simple mistake at the wrong time, "Mr. President...." BAM!!!

A friend of mine who served in Iraq has two friends over at the secret service. They're not on presidential detail (counterfeit money is their game). But they've relayed some stories about how Obama is very difficult for the secret service to handle. He's very "slippery". He enjoys his freedom too much. Bush, they say, never took any chances. Was scared to death of getting shot. Obama? Could care less.

Recipe. For. Disaster.

So there's Hope after all.

That really was just a joke.

That's really discomforting. I was surprised seeing him 'kick the doors open' getting out of the limo with the ss asking him to wait.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

That was a sensible display of his right to bear arms, something other states would do well to emulate. Open carry is an excellent way to deter crime. How many robberies and other crimes do you think would happen if the majority of the population was well trained and well armed?

Then we could look at the mass shootings... Va Tech, Columbine... just to name two.

This guy did not need to carry an assault rifle (yeah, assault rifle) to a public area. It raises tension, leading to less dialogue and more fear.

Self defense requires an assault rifle? Sounds like we have more serious problems to deal with, but showing the weapon won't help fix them, it will only increase them.

The term "assault rifle" is an incendiary, sensational term used by the media for...well...incendiary sensationalism. It was most likely a semi-automatic, which means it is not technically an "assault rifle". Fully automatic weapons are all but illegal under numerous acts of legislation.

Civilian ownership of assault rifles is regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before May 1986. In addition, some states enforce their own laws regulating or forbidding civilian possession of assault rifles. Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions on such weapons.

Regardless of the guy's motive, he was well within his rights. I'm not saying it was a tasteful thing for him to do, I'm just saying he had the right to do it.

What about the other people there at the demonstration openly displaying their handguns? Were they out of line?

Bush enjoyed fear. He made the populace fearful. So, yeah, he lived in fear.

However, on September 11, he and his entourage stayed at the school in Florida long enough to appear on TV (something he could easily do on Air Force 1) before boarding the plane and then flying all over out of fear... timing is off, sorry, buddy.

Obama is more a common guy and not necessarily used to nor appreciative of the need for the protection.

Even with the lunatic policies Bush enacted, how many people showed up at his speeches bearing assault weapons (yeah I use the term for anything that can fire more than 8 bullets a minute)?

Some people are really, really starting to jump off the deep end and it is frightening to watch. I'm getting worried that something really is going to happen. The stupidity is verifiable.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.

And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.

The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."